A
amsjj
Guest
Hiya,
Here’s more info on that:
“Priests of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest are now referred to as “Canons”
ourparishtoo.blogspot.com/2008/12/priests-of-institute-of-christ-king.html
- Status
Here’s more info on that:
“Priests of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest are now referred to as “Canons”
ourparishtoo.blogspot.com/2008/12/priests-of-institute-of-christ-king.html
M
malphono
Guest
Thanks.Hiya,
Here’s more info on that:
So it seems that it was concurrent with the granting of Pontifical Right. Very nice indeed.
N
nannygirl
Guest
“With the Decree Saeculorum Rex signed by the President of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, Dario Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, in the name of the Roman Pontiff, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest was elevated to the status of Pontifical Right on October 7th 2008, the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary.”
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, I knew about the elevation of the ICRSS to Pontifical Right, but not that it included recognition as an Institute of Canons. In any case, it’s good news.
P
pro_multis
Guest
When did it become common to address priests as “Father First Name”
A
Apryl
Guest
Nuh unh!
Nuns don’t have last names, and priest don’t have FIRST names.
Bing Crosby was Fr. FLANNIGAN, not Fr. Shawn! (or whatever his first name was)
Just kidding… but seriously, I never heard of the default for addressing a priest to be using his first name. I went to Catholic School, and I spend a lot of time around a bunch of different priest from different dioceses (even different COUNTRIES), and I have not heard any one asking someone to address him by his first name unless he was being in a very casual setting.
Could you imagine Fr. Frank becoming Biship Davis? Nah… It’ll be Fr. Frank to Bp. Davis.
(NOTE: all comments are related to LATIN RITE only. I have no knowledge of the other Rites than that they exist)
B
blueriver
Guest
Sorry but sometimes I find people on this forum are scared to talk about some of the realities of the Church,where man has corrupted it is not ALL good… Yes I have had experience with very sinful priests and it has affected my outlook on priests as they are not ALL Holy, this is something I need to discuss and get advice on… if that is something you dont want to hear too bad, its truth.
My Father in Heaven is faultless, my Father on earth was awesome and I dont think all priests are necessarily deserving of the title, particularly ones who have violated my trust.
B
blueriver
Guest
OK I’ll get on my soapbox, a person titled Father carries a responsibility to act as such, just as our Father in Heaven (and sorry just to be a man of cloth is not enough)The proper address “Father”.
The proper address is “Father Lastname”
Some don’t mind being addressed as Padre, Father Firstname, or even Father Last Initial
You can even, CORRECTLY, address a priest as ‘Reverend’. I believe that is a customary form of address in written materials.
I was at our Rectory one afternoon, answering phones. The new priest is “Fr. Frances McBride”, who commonly asks us to call him “Father Frank”, rather than “Fr. McBride” (name is changed to protect the humor level). A call came in asking for “Franky”. I immediately called him to the phone. “Father, you have a family member calling”
My uncle has issues with the whole ‘Call no man Father’ scripture, so he addresses him as “Pastor”; this he asked the priest if it was OK before he started.
I think it’s important that we have respect for me of the cloth, be they Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, whatever. We don’t have to believe as they do. We don’t have to believe as the people who follow them do. But, because we are adults, in a respectful situation, we should address them in a manner befitting of respect. Even if they mess up, do something they shouldn’t do, we should still respect that these people of the cloth represent a group of people who have a belief.
Period.
OK… Imo get off of my soap box… but y’all heard me. I don’t want any one giving any grief about addressing a Catholic priest as ‘Father’ nor do I want to hear any grief for addressing a Muslim Imam as such.
Im not giving grief, I am discussing a truth that you people seem afraid of hearing.
If my trust has been violated by a priest why should I give him the honorous address of Father just because he wears the cloth.
I was asking for advice on something sacred that has been violated for me and you people prefer to sweep it under the carpet.
Just because you are Christian it doesn’t mean you have to deny ugly truths in the Church because they are there!!
B
blueriver
Guest
My title does not suggest responsibilty to others, the title of Father is a big responsibilty and must be fulfilled with honesty and ethics…If my trust has been violated by a priest than NO, they dont deserve the title of Father as they are not acting as a Father does.
B
blueriver
Guest
My Dad never violated my trust, he was deserving of being called Father
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
The post you replied to said “religious priests” meaning “order priests.” In that case, it is correct to call him Father ‘firstname’ because often an order priest took a different name on joining the order (as the Pope does on his election). That is not always the case today, but the tradition continues.
For diocesan (or secular) priests, traditionally they are Father ‘lastname’. But as always, if the priest asks you to use a different name (we have one with a preference for Father ‘firstname diminutive’ at our parish), it is polite to do so.
I know several priests that I have known since before they were ordained. In private conversation I call them simply by their first name. In public, I call them Father Name.
For diocesan (or secular) priests, traditionally they are Father ‘lastname’. But as always, if the priest asks you to use a different name (we have one with a preference for Father ‘firstname diminutive’ at our parish), it is polite to do so.
I know several priests that I have known since before they were ordained. In private conversation I call them simply by their first name. In public, I call them Father Name.
Nuh unh!
Nuns don’t have last names, and priest don’t have FIRST names.
Bing Crosby was Fr. FLANNIGAN, not Fr. Shawn! (or whatever his first name was)
Just kidding… but seriously, I never heard of the default for addressing a priest to be using his first name. I went to Catholic School, and I spend a lot of time around a bunch of different priest from different dioceses (even different COUNTRIES), and I have not heard any one asking someone to address him by his first name unless he was being in a very casual setting.
Could you imagine Fr. Frank becoming Biship Davis? Nah… It’ll be Fr. Frank to Bp. Davis.
(NOTE: all comments are related to LATIN RITE only. I have no knowledge of the other Rites than that they exist)
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
It has been the tradition of religious to be addressed as Father “First Name” (same with Sisters but replacing Father with Sister, Brothers go the same way too) while secular priests are addressed as Father “Last Name”.Nuh unh!
Nuns don’t have last names, and priest don’t have FIRST names.
Bing Crosby was Fr. FLANNIGAN, not Fr. Shawn! (or whatever his first name was)
Just kidding… but seriously, I never heard of the default for addressing a priest to be using his first name. I went to Catholic School, and I spend a lot of time around a bunch of different priest from different dioceses (even different COUNTRIES), and I have not heard any one asking someone to address him by his first name unless he was being in a very casual setting.
Could you imagine Fr. Frank becoming Biship Davis? Nah… It’ll be Fr. Frank to Bp. Davis.
(NOTE: all comments are related to LATIN RITE only. I have no knowledge of the other Rites than that they exist)
This is because traditionally when one entered a religious order they were given a religious name, a First Name, no religious last name.
Also the traditions in the Eastern Churches is Father “First name” which also goes for Bishops, that is Bishop “First name”.
J
John_Lazarus
Guest
My only experience with priests of an order has been with the Jesuits (high school) and the Redemptorists (church I attended).
At St Teresa’s Church (Redemptorist), the priests were all generally “Fr Firstname”.
In high school (Gonzaga, Jesuit), it was on an individual basis. Most were “Fr Surname”; in informal settings (like outside of class), if you were well-known to the priest, it might be “Fr Firstname”.
We had two priests at Gonzaga who were brothers: Frs John and Emmett Trainor. One might refer to “Father John” and “Father Emmet” to distinguish the two Frs Trainor. Fr Emmett was almost always addressed as “Father Trainor”, and sometimes you could address Fr John as “Father John”. Fr Charles Holland was normally addressed as “Fr Holland”, but usually referred to as “Fr Chuck” – but only if out of earshot and reach.
Fr Lloyd Lipinski, whom I considered a friend, I switched between “Fr Lloyd” and “Fr Lipinski” depending on the circumstances. Fr Beaudois, the lantern-jawed buzz-cut drill-sergeant-lunged ex-Army chaplain, was always “Fr Beaudois” – I don’t think the Army issued him a first name… 
The seminarians were all “Mr Surname”. We had a Jesuit Brother, and he was apparently “Brother Joe” (I rarely encountered him, so I always just addressed him as “Brother”).
Oh, and when I attended junior high, taught by the Irish Christian Brothers, all the brothers were “Br. Lastname” – NEVER “Br Firstname”. Actually, they were normally addressed as just “Bro” (“Yes, Bro”, “No, Bro”), sometimes as “Brudder”.
At St Teresa’s Church (Redemptorist), the priests were all generally “Fr Firstname”.
In high school (Gonzaga, Jesuit), it was on an individual basis. Most were “Fr Surname”; in informal settings (like outside of class), if you were well-known to the priest, it might be “Fr Firstname”.
We had two priests at Gonzaga who were brothers: Frs John and Emmett Trainor. One might refer to “Father John” and “Father Emmet” to distinguish the two Frs Trainor. Fr Emmett was almost always addressed as “Father Trainor”, and sometimes you could address Fr John as “Father John”. Fr Charles Holland was normally addressed as “Fr Holland”, but usually referred to as “Fr Chuck” – but only if out of earshot and reach.
Fr Lloyd Lipinski, whom I considered a friend, I switched between “Fr Lloyd” and “Fr Lipinski” depending on the circumstances. Fr Beaudois, the lantern-jawed buzz-cut drill-sergeant-lunged ex-Army chaplain, was always “Fr Beaudois” – I don’t think the Army issued him a first name… The seminarians were all “Mr Surname”. We had a Jesuit Brother, and he was apparently “Brother Joe” (I rarely encountered him, so I always just addressed him as “Brother”).
Oh, and when I attended junior high, taught by the Irish Christian Brothers, all the brothers were “Br. Lastname” – NEVER “Br Firstname”. Actually, they were normally addressed as just “Bro” (“Yes, Bro”, “No, Bro”), sometimes as “Brudder”.
A
Apryl
Guest
What are you talking about?
A
Apryl
Guest
So… even priest you have never met violated your trust?
I’m sorry to hear that.
I don’t have that history. I can’t say that ANY priest I have met has violated my trust. One told some people how old I was when I didn’t want him to, but that’s about it.
J
jrabs
Guest
I am sorry that you feel you cannot trust Fr XYZ. That appears to be an issue between you and Fr. XYZ - not to be extrapolated to all priests.
Please give every other priest his due respect. It’s really not fair or honorable to say that all priests behaved the same way you feel Fr XYZ behaved.
O
ocleirbj
Guest
When I was involved in a children’s liturgy programme about 20 years ago, the women who ran it would refer any questions about it to “Father”, name unspecified. “Father told us to do it this way”, “I asked Father and he said…” As a recent convert, I found this unusual and a little unsettling, as though they couldn’t remember which of our three priests they had asked, or maybe they thought it didn’t matter - just “Father” was authority enough. Is this common anywhere else? (I’m in southern Ontario)
B
blueriver
Guest
If you notice what I quoted, you will understand my answer…the word ‘Father’ is sacred to me and carries a responsibilty of integrity.What are you talking about?
Once again I’ll say Jesus said ‘Call no-one on earth your Father’ so I just think it was a bit arrogant of the Church to disregard this and call themselves Fathers.
Its pretty self-explanatory…I dont think a priest who has violated my trust is deserving of this sacred name, does that make it clearer for you?
B
blueriver
Guest
If you read what I quoted, you would not be asking this question…the word ‘Father’ is sacred to me and carries a responsibilty of integrity.What are you talking about?
Once again I’ll say Jesus said ‘Call no-one on earth your Father’ so I just think it was a bit arrogant of the Church to disregard this and call themselves Fathers.
Its pretty self-explanatory…I dont think a priest who has violated my trust is deserving of this sacred name, does that make it clearer for you?
And if we are referring to Gods moral law it was He who said ‘Call no-one on earth your Father’…Im not talking about a social trend at all
B
blueriver
Guest
Sorry I didnt mean this to sound like I was referring to All priests, I absolutely respect and honor their positions and Im sure that most of them would not behave in this way…and I do call them Father as I trust in their utmost integrity concerning God
My position is a discomfort in calling a particular priest Father, I think I will just say Hi from now on, this way he will not notice I am calling him anything different
- Status